The argument made by the radio host is that if gay marriage is allowed so could, potentially, incest become. Yes, that's true. It could happen. But I'm sure it won't. We have gay marriage here and trust me nobody is talking about allowing incest.

By this logic marriage shouldn't be allowed at all since it could lead to gay marriage that could lead to incest being allowed. And by God are we going to allow robot marriages next?

...And 100 years ago women were seen as property and black people couldn't vote. Many 'opinions' were that they weren't people or close to equals in race or gender (amongst other things, but not looking to derail the thread). At this point you're just arguing semantics of opinion, how one person could deem something wrong, but another may not. This isn't directly about above quote, more of your general message.

The point is this, the concept of gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage. The key difference is peoples' opinion on the matter. Sometimes it's not in the betterment of mankind. If someone sees it as a slippery slope, there's no factual basis for it. It's not even a correlation. It's just making two statements based on their own heavy handed view that they are trying to push onto their viewers.

So in essence you can't say, "well if we allow gay marriage, then how is incest wrong?" Gay marriage is the same concept as heterosexual. It's 2 people who want to marry. end of story. Incest is the process of intercourse with someone in your own family. Not even close to the same concept. For it to be, the thought process would need to be, if we allow mom and dad to have sex with each other, why can't brother and sister do too?

I didnít mean that being a $#@!sexual would directly allow you to become incestual. I donít think the host of the show meant that either. The point he was making is that if we say this is right then who is to say the other thing is wrong?

Youíre sort of proving my point in the first part of your post. It is an opinion of people who think $#@!sexuality is right or wrong. In the end, weíre going with the fact that if ďthatĒ person thinks itís right then we should let them be happy.

Well, couldnít we say the same about people who would be happy with incest? Or pedophilia (if itís consentual).

Well, couldn’t we say the same about people who would be happy with incest? Or pedophilia (if it’s consentual).

The difference being a pre-pubertal child isn't mature enough to consent to anything. If people are over 18 let them do what they want in their bedroom. But incest do have a huge risk of resulting in DNA defective children. Therefore it would be wise to educate around that.

The argument made by the radio host is that if gay marriage is allowed so could, potentially, incest become. Yes, that's true. It could happen. But I'm sure it won't. We have gay marriage here and trust me nobody is talking about allowing incest.

By this logic marriage shouldn't be allowed at all since it could lead to gay marriage that could lead to incest being allowed. And by God are we going to allow robot marriages next?

It's a stupid straw man argument.

No no, he didn’t say that it would lead to that directly. And if he did, I’m not arguing about that anyway, that’s silly. I’m sure there’s no correlation. The point is that if that is allowed because it’s based on what we feel is right or wrong then who are we to judge people who would perform other things that we think is wrong but they feel is right? In the end, isn’t it all just based on opinions anyway? As long as no one is hurting anyone…why are choosing this to be right and others to be wrong?

Yes, I know there’s not enough people out that that would be ok with incest (I’m assuming only people that participate in that may think it is right and maybe even most of those may not either but still do it). But that’s all beside the point.

Because if we are to go by percentages or what majority thinks then to the world, $#@!sexuality is probably wrong.

I’m arguing a very hypothetical point of view. I do support gay relationship/marriage or whatever, even though my religion says otherwise.

I didnít mean that being a $#@!sexual would directly allow you to become incestual. I donít think the host of the show meant that either. The point he was making is that if we say this is right then who is to say the other thing is wrong?

Ah, ok. In the same light, if heterosexual marriage is ok, why is X,Y, or Z wrong? Or better yet, why is $#@!sexual wrong if heterosexual is right? (reversing the question back)

Youíre sort of proving my point in the first part of your post. It is an opinion of people who think $#@!sexuality is right or wrong. In the end, weíre going with the fact that if ďthatĒ person thinks itís right then we should let them be happy.

Well, couldnít we say the same about people who would be happy with incest? Or pedophilia (if itís consentual).

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you (I like threads like these), and I see where you're getting at with this part. If it's deemed on opinion, an opinion is always better supported with facts or some sort of actual basis. For example, you could have an opinion that water is bad for you, but all the facts point it to being good for you.

As for incest or pedophilia, there was a lot of that going on all throughout history. As others have pointed out. Why is it wrong? Well it was shown that bloodlines affected deeply by incest tend to have major medical problems. So having an opinion that it's wrong because you'll have messed up children is at least an opinion supported by data.

For pedophilia, one could examine the psychological differences between an adult and a child. An adult in society is looked to help guide and take care of a child, nothing sexual. A child does not know better and truly doesn't have enough of a developed brain to consent to sexual activity with an adult. And in many instances, the child doesn't want to perform such activity, therefore making it wrong.

The difference being a pre-pubertal child isn't mature enough to consent to anything. If people are over 18 let them do what they want in their bedroom. But incest do have a huge risk of resulting in DNA defective children. Therefore it would be wise to educate around that.

Originally Posted by Tutankhamun

The difference being a pre-pubertal child isn't mature enough to consent to anything. If people are over 18 let them do what they want in their bedroom. But incest do have a huge risk of resulting in DNA defective children. Therefore it would be wise to educate around that.

But we’re back down to opinions. I know that when I was 10, I started to find women attractive and may have consented with an adult woman based on the situation. Is there something wrong with that?

18 is a number we came up with because that’s what we think. There are plenty of kids having sex with one another way before that, I’m sure most of you in this thread have had it before the age of 18. The difference is that you likely were with someone as old or younger than you or possibly slightly older. So if you were 17 and had sex with an 18 year old, is that wrong?

Of course it all depends but it’s all down to our opinions. What we’ve decided in the case of $#@!sexuality is that if they’re ok with it (the consenting people) then why do we care? Well, I agree with that totally, I don’t care. But then with that concept, how can we stop anything that is not normal?

It is what it is... I do think incest is wrong on a child birth level. If it is between brother and sister i can accept, but if it is mother and son

Then that i would not accept...

See you are proving my point. You are ok with some part of it at least. So another person might accept the whole thing or none of it. The aggregated result might show (if everyone was honest) that there’s enough agreement to allow it in some manner. Of course this wouldn’t work because we all know that most people do not accept that but hypothetically it should be possible because there was a time when almost no one (even $#@!sexuals) did not believe that $#@!sexuality was right.

Originally Posted by Sir_Scud

Ah, ok. In the same light, if heterosexual marriage is ok, why is X,Y, or Z wrong? Or better yet, why is $#@!sexual wrong if heterosexual is right? (reversing the question back)

Because it’s natural, it’s the way we procreate.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you (I like threads like these), and I see where you're getting at with this part. If it's deemed on opinion, an opinion is always better supported with facts or some sort of actual basis. For example, you could have an opinion that water is bad for you, but all the facts point it to being good for you.

As for incest or pedophilia, there was a lot of that going on all throughout history. As others have pointed out. Why is it wrong? Well it was shown that bloodlines affected deeply by incest tend to have major medical problems. So having an opinion that it's wrong because you'll have messed up children is at least an opinion supported by data.

For pedophilia, one could examine the psychological differences between an adult and a child. An adult in society is looked to help guide and take care of a child, nothing sexual. A child does not know better and truly doesn't have enough of a developed brain to consent to sexual activity with an adult. And in many instances, the child doesn't want to perform such activity, therefore making it wrong.

Great points but then we can also argue that $#@!sexuality has psychological and medical issues related to it. First and foremost STDs (not sure if it’s among lesbians but it does apply to males) and then there are higher chances of gays having domestic abuse (don’t quote me on this but I think I have heard of this), they have higher break up rates, higher depression risks…so we can argue that it’s not good for them, no?

But weíre back down to opinions. I know that when I was 10, I started to find women attractive and may have consented with an adult woman based on the situation. Is there something wrong with that?

18 is a number we came up with because thatís what we think. There are plenty of kids having sex with one another way before that, Iím sure most of you in this thread have had it before the age of 18. The difference is that you likely were with someone as old or younger than you or possibly slightly older. So if you were 17 and had sex with an 18 year old, is that wrong?

Of course it all depends but itís all down to our opinions. What weíve decided in the case of $#@!sexuality is that if theyíre ok with it (the consenting people) then why do we care? Well, I agree with that totally, I donít care. But then with that concept, how can we stop anything that is not normal?

Well, we need to get the terms right. A pedophile is attracted to a person that has not yet reached puberty. Meaning one person in a sexual relation would have been thorough puberty and one won't. Meaning the age difference is significant. I have no issues with children having sex witch each other in their age group and nor does the law.

(In Sweden you are allowed to have sex with anyone when you are 15 which is more sensible than 18)

Well, we need to get the terms right. A pedophile is attracted to a person that has not yet reached puberty. Meaning one person in a sexual relation would have been thorough puberty and one won't. Meaning the age difference is significant. I have no issues with children having sex witch each other in their age group and nor does the law.

(In Sweden you are allowed to have sex with anyone when you are 15 which is more sensible than 1

You’re right, I didn’t know of a better word to use. However, to my knowledge, the age doesn’t make a difference. You could be below 18 and still practice pedophilia…I think in US law it is a child below the age of 12 or 11. You could be 18 and still be identified as a pedophile depending on what the other person’s age was.

It’s possible that a 12 year old could consent with another person who is 15 and that would still be a crime (I’m not 100% sure how it applies to people below 18 but that makes sense to me) or we can take an 18 year old too if I’m incorrect there.

Point is, if they’re both in consent then who are we to say they’re wrong? (taking out law and opinions)

Interesting point you brought up with the age 15 in Sweden because most people here would think of that as crime (or that it’s wrong)…that furthers my point, doesn’t it!?

I knew that but what I didn’t know was that $#@!sexuality could have permanence among animals. But that still takes me back to the point that if $#@!sexuality isn’t some sort of an anomaly then we could progress as a species without heterosexuality but that’s not possible.

Great points but then we can also argue that $#@!sexuality has psychological and medical issues related to it. First and foremost STDs (not sure if it’s among lesbians but it does apply to males) and then there are higher chances of gays having domestic abuse (don’t quote me on this but I think I have heard of this), they have higher break up rates, higher depression risks…so we can argue that it’s not good for them, no?

The problem is we are venturing close into information without the proper data. When you state higher break up rates, is that for co-habiting partners? Since gay marriage is of course not legal everywhere. Those distinctions do matter because I could move in with my girlfriend for 40 years, break up and never be a part of that stat. Different states obviously have different laws about co-habitation and what you can declare after X amount of years living together. If this was part of your "don't quote me", my bad lol. So data can be heavily skewed, essentially.

With STDs and depression, yeah I've heard about it. The difference returns to two consenting adults, which you would bring back incest, which could be with two happily consenting adults. The difference there? Two $#@!sexual men cannot produce a child in traditional terms. There will be no medical complications that they bring about to an unsuspecting child. With incest, a child can be born that greatly suffers throughout life by a direct result of two related individuals.

Yes, you could say STDs would do the same thing to an unsuspecting partner, but the awareness is a lot higher than it used to be. And in the end both $#@!sexuals and heterosexuals get STDs. It comes down to people being smart about what they do with whom they do it. And it's their choice, unlike a child born with defects caused by incest.

The problem is we are venturing close into information without the proper data. When you state higher break up rates, is that for co-habiting partners? Since gay marriage is of course not legal everywhere. Those distinctions do matter because I could move in with my girlfriend for 40 years, break up and never be a part of that stat. Different states obviously have different laws about co-habitation and what you can declare after X amount of years living together. If this was part of your "don't quote me", my bad lol. So data can be heavily skewed, essentially.

You have a point there, it probably did account gays that were not married. I don’t remember if they had mentioned that. It is possible that this was happening due to the fact that they didn’t have rights to get married, it’s possible that these problems could arise due to these implications.

With STDs and depression, yeah I've heard about it. The difference returns to two consenting adults, which you would bring back incest, which could be with two happily consenting adults. The difference there? Two $#@!sexual men cannot produce a child in traditional terms. There will be no medical complications that they bring about to an unsuspecting child. With incest, a child can be born that greatly suffers throughout life by a direct result of two related individuals.

Sure but I hate to rebuttal this with the fact that two males could have a child aka surrogacy. Sure it’s not completely natural but does that matter? Though that wouldn’t happen in a normal case because they probably get you tested before going through the process.

Yes, you could say STDs would do the same thing to an unsuspecting partner, but the awareness is a lot higher than it used to be. And in the end both $#@!sexuals and heterosexuals get STDs. It comes down to people being smart about what they do with whom they do it. And it's their choice, unlike a child born with defects caused by incest.

true true but then we’re opening up another can here because if we’re talking about defects caused to a child…then why don’t we have laws to prevent that against in normal situations? Are there laws against pregnant women smoking? Drinking? Doing whatever they want to do?

Even abortion can be done up to a good amount of time, without a reason, cause. That’s hurting the child probably more, isn’t it?

I’m only playing the devil’s advocate. But these arguments could be made by people who practice incest. In the end, we will go back to the fact, “Who are we to judge?”

Originally Posted by claud3

I guess we all have different views on this and they are all greatly put across... But we all have to agree, that HUMANS will do what they want

It is what it is... I do think incest is wrong on a child birth level. If it is between brother and sister i can accept, but if it is mother and son

Then that i would not accept...

Well I understand what your saying. that its bad when involving child birth and so on. the love between the brother and sister is not whats wrong, its what they do with that love. sometimes you have to think "What will happen if I...." yanno? To me love is love, but you have to think about what that love will cost you. if a brother loves his sister in that way, fine, but just try to remember that your not just doing something that will effect you..its going to effect the child for their whole life

Well I understand what your saying. that its bad when involving child birth and so on. the love between the brother and sister is not whats wrong, its what they do with that love. sometimes you have to think "What will happen if I...." yanno? To me love is love, but you have to think about what that love will cost you. if a brother loves his sister in that way, fine, but just try to remember that your not just doing something that will effect you..its going to effect the child for their whole life

do all heterosexuals care about an unborn child’s life in all cases? Should we put a check in there to see who deserves to give life and who doesn’t?

I have a question. I was listening to a right-wing radio show and the guy brought up a point that I’m having trouble answering. The show host said that if we allowed gay marriage then we will be on a slippery slope where eventually incest could also be allowed.

At first I discarded it but now I’m thinking what the difference between the two is? I mean, the concepts; I know the obvious differences. So my question is, if gay marriage is allowed then what makes incest wrong?

This is indeed a slippery-slope fallacy, and also baseless fear-mongering tactic. "If we allow whites and blacks to marry and love each other, next thing you know we'll all be $#@!ing dogs!" Oh, wait.

But let's actually examine this. Let's say that $#@!sexuality is globally accepted and that a century has passed. All of a sudden there is, as unlikely as it may be, a sect of society that pushes for the legal allowance of consensual incest. Alright. What has changed now? Is this a detriment to any single person? Is it a detriment to society? Not really, no. No one is being hurt by this. And to dismantle common belief, incest doesn't produce genetically defect off-spring on the first go. It actually takes several generations for anything negative to come from it. Animals and humans (historically) have committed incest all the time. We all have ancestors who committed incest at once point.

Not that I care about making incest legal. I also doubt society will move to advocate it any time soon, if ever. It's not really a common want and it's generally disliked across the board. My point is that we really should examine if something is actually dangerous, not just fear it because it's already forbidden by society. Are we really so selfish to think that our current morals and social parameters are perfect, and that they should always apply? I don't think they are. If society as a whole can change and adopt new things, where no one is being hurt, then what's the harm?

You have a point there, it probably did account gays that were not married. I don’t remember if they had mentioned that. It is possible that this was happening due to the fact that they didn’t have rights to get married, it’s possible that these problems could arise due to these implications.

Sure but I hate to rebuttal this with the fact that two males could have a child aka surrogacy. Sure it’s not completely natural but does that matter? Though that wouldn’t happen in a normal case because they probably get you tested before going through the process.

I do not know enough about the process. I imagine there's a lot of testing done for it. I think the fact that it's not natural is what ticks off some people. $#@!sexual couples that get married and have children through other means.

true true but then we’re opening up another can here because if we’re talking about defects caused to a child…then why don’t we have laws to prevent that against in normal situations? Are there laws against pregnant women smoking? Drinking? Doing whatever they want to do?

This is such an unfortunate truth, there's not any that I know. My brother worked in a hospital, and he saw so many new born babies addicted to crack (or whatever else). Many poor choices were made by people there. With incest, there's 100% chance of defects based on whatever horrible disease that may be in your genetic code. But it doesn't have to be incest to drink, smoke, etc. Just poor poor choices. But yes, this is opening up a whole different subject.

Even abortion can be done up to a good amount of time, without a reason, cause. That’s hurting the child probably more, isn’t it?

Well, technically it is "killing" the child. But even that is debatable, depending on stage, definitions, etc. This subject alone is a gigantic ethical issue in itself. Many divided people with different opinions. Is it right to potentially end the existence of a child pre-birth, if it was known it would've suffered through numerous complications? Who has the authority of the decision? That is more a debate about choice vs right or wrong.

I’m only playing the devil’s advocate. But these arguments could be made by people who practice incest. In the end, we will go back to the fact, “Who are we to judge?”

Yeah, it's interesting to discuss. For my personal view on "who are we to judge?"....I'm a firm believer in, I don't give two craps what you do in your home. If you believe in 15 different gods, cool. If you're $#@!sexual, ok. What you do is your business, but when it becomes other people's business is when it harms someone else. If you're breaking the law, etc. I will treat anyone with respect, unless they show me otherwise.

I will say this with opinions or beliefs, THERE IS ALWAYS A GREY AREA. No subject can be divided perfectly as right or wrong.

I care for an unborn child that is created by the same GENE POOL... Because the groth of that child is suffered by the GENETICS and the down right inability to function

The brain feeds on new GENES and that way it develops into a single organ and the individual can be unique and acknowledge who they are,

Unless the incest people keep it from them and that is even more damaging to the child... The features a child or children born via incest relations are different, their faces are different and they act different and reaction to situations is different

They function under a cloud of unawareness and their brain just can not work right...

I again do not care if a brother or sister have a sexual relationship and marry, as long as they do not produce kids

Plato and Aristotle, a detail of The School of Athens, a fresco by Raphael. Aristotle gestures to the earth, representing his belief in knowledge

This is indeed a slippery-slope fallacy, and also baseless fear-mongering tactic. "If we allow whites and blacks to marry and love each other, next thing you know we'll all be $#@!ing dogs!" Oh, wait.

But let's actually examine this. Let's say that $#@!sexuality is globally accepted and that a century has passed. All of a sudden there is, as unlikely as it may be, a sect of society that pushes for the legal allowance of consensual incest. Alright. What has changed now? Is this a detriment to any single person? Is it a detriment to society? Not really, no. No one is being hurt by this. And to dismantle common belief, incest doesn't produce genetically defect off-spring on the first go. It actually takes several generations for anything negative to come from it. Animals and humans (historically) have committed incest all the time. We all have ancestors who committed incest at once point.

Not that I care about making incest legal. I also doubt society will move to advocate it any time soon, if ever. It's not really a common want and it's generally disliked across the board. My point is that we really should examine if something is actually dangerous, not just fear it because it's already forbidden by society. Are we really so selfish to think that our current morals and social parameters are perfect, and that they should always apply? I don't think they are. If society as a whole can change and adopt new things, where no one is being hurt, then what's the harm?

This is a great post Rapture but there are some misunderstandings here. 1) Iím not actually saying that $#@!sexuality would lead to Incest. I realize some people have commented that way, in which case, itís likely my wording thatís incorrect and my apologies for that. 2) Iím not suggesting that it would ever get passed in any way, I know that our society is far from it.

What Iím speaking is about conceptual terms. If we were to get enough people that did agree with it and itís done between consenting people then who are we to say that itís wrong? Isnít that whatís going on? So technically you wouldnít be hurting anyone if two people consensually practiced incest or pedophilia and Iím sure many other things I could come up with.

So technically, if the time ever came where we have enough people thinking like claud lol (sorry claud, I know youíre a nice guy but you brought up why Iím talking about this) then why shouldnít that be allowed? Whatís the difference? If it feels right to someone, why is that not right?

This is a great post Rapture but there are some misunderstandings here.

I wasn't implying this was you actually saying these things. You laid the topic out for everyone to see and I made my response to it.

Originally Posted by Sufi

So technically, if the time ever came where we have enough people thinking like claud, then why shouldn’t that be allowed? What’s the difference? If it feels right to someone, why is that not right?

I already made my points about this in the last two paragraphs of my post. I think it's wise for society to be open and flexible to change as long as we can ensure it's consensual and safe (within the best context and conditions of the world at that time).

Posting Permissions

PlayStation Universe

Copyright 2006-2014 7578768 Canada Inc. All Right Reserved.

Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written
permission of Abstract Holdings International Ltd. prohibited.Use of this site is governed
by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.